PTAB

IPR2025-01561

Micron Semiconductor Products Inc v. Palisade Technologies LLP

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Improved Voltage Regulation
  • Brief Description: The ’962 patent discloses systems and methods for an improved voltage regulator circuit integrated on a semiconductor chip. The invention aims to provide a stable supply voltage to a load under varying conditions without relying on a large capacitor, purporting to be effective across a wide range of operating frequencies.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 7-11, 14, and 16-20 are obvious over Scott

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Scott (Patent 7,151,363).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Scott, which discloses a "High PSRR, Fast Settle Time Voltage Regulator," teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped components of Scott's regulator to the claimed elements, asserting that Scott's "voltage bias circuitry" corresponds to the claimed "feedback circuit," its "output transistor (18)" is the "second current supply circuit," and its "transistor (30)" functions as the claimed "pass device." Petitioner contended that Scott's circuit performs the claimed function of regulating voltage by using a high-speed feedback loop to rapidly respond to dips in the output voltage. For dependent claims, Petitioner identified specific corresponding disclosures in Scott; for example, Scott’s "reservoir capacitor" of 10 pF was argued to meet the "stability capacitor arrangement" with a capacitance of "less than 30 pico-farads" required by claims 7 and 8. Similarly, Scott's discussion of a current mirror with a gain ratio greater than 10 was argued to teach the load current being an order of magnitude greater than the second current path, as required by claim 9.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this ground is a direct, element-by-element mapping of Scott's disclosed integrated circuit to the claimed invention, asserting that Scott's circuit components, though sometimes named differently, are structurally and functionally equivalent to those claimed in the ’962 patent.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 7-11, 14, and 16-20 are obvious over Scott in view of Gradinariu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Scott (Patent 7,151,363) and Gradinariu (Patent 7,026,802).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that to the extent Scott is found not to explicitly teach decreasing the load current in response to an increase in output voltage, Gradinariu provides this teaching. Gradinariu discloses a "replica biased voltage regulator circuit" that provides "continuous and proportional load regulation" by using an amplifier that provides negative feedback to correct for voltage variations in both directions. This teaching from Gradinariu would supply any potential deficiency in Scott's disclosure regarding bidirectional correction.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Scott and Gradinariu because both are directed to voltage regulators operating on the same principle of monitoring and adjusting output. A POSITA would recognize that a robust voltage regulator must correct for both increases and decreases in output voltage to operate properly. Since Scott primarily focuses on correcting voltage drops, a POSITA would look to a reference like Gradinariu, which explicitly teaches bidirectional correction, to improve Scott's design for comprehensive performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the references. Petitioner asserted that Scott's circuit already possesses the capability to react to voltage changes in both directions, even if not emphasized. Therefore, implementing Gradinariu's explicit teaching of bidirectional control would only require minor, predictable modifications to Scott's existing architecture.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • For several means-plus-function limitations recited in claim 14 (e.g., "feedback means," "first current supply means"), Petitioner stated that it applied the constructions adopted by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in related litigation. The petition adopted the court's agreed-upon function and construed structure for these terms. Petitioner asserted that under these constructions, the prior art still discloses the challenged claims and that no other terms required explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability grounds.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 7-11, 14, and 16-20 of Patent 8,148,962 as unpatentable.